LexUNION OF INDIA & ANR. versus K. P. S. RAGHUVANSHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 263 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. K. P. S. RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 13776-13777 of 2015) MAYll,2017 (ARUN MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] A B Service law - Promotion - Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) - Recommendations of - Challenge to - Respondent no. I, DIG in Indian Coast Guard Service - Promotion sought to the post C of Inspector General - Recommendations of the DPC - Writ petition by respondent no. I challenging the said recommendations as illegal, arbitrmy and conducted on the basis of selection policy, framed a month prior to the holding of the Selection Board, CGO 02109 superseding CGO 02105; and that the Director General endorsed ACR of respondent no.I, for the period from OI.02.2008 to D JI.01.2009, in spite of not having observed the performance of the incumbent for a mandatory period of 90 days - High Court held thal it was illegal to conduct the DPC on the basis of the ACRs criterion reflected in CGO 02109; and that as three months had not been completed by respondent no.2, the DGICG was not competent E to write the ACR and to act as Reviewing officer - High Court ordered promotion to lhe rank of JG on "Relative Merit Based Selection" within the eligible batch of officers - On appeal, held: Rules which were in existence, when the vacancies arose, should be taken into consideration until and unless otherwise spec(fically so decided - Posts in question had been created only in the year 2009 - F There was no delay in calling DPC - CGO 02109 which was issued after exercise of 4 years was in force - Thus. the High Court erred in holding that the CGO 02105 should be applied and complied with, particularly, when the date of DPC was 23.07.2009 - It is lhe date of DPC which matters and the procedure which is prevalent on G the date on which the DPC is held is applicable - Thus, the provisions contained in CGO 02109 would hold the field and DPC was rightly held as per instructions relating to ACRs contained in CGO 02109 - Furthermore, the previous incumbent had retired and thus, was not available to write the review - Review could be undertaken in the - H 263 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 4 S.C.R. . A facts of the case by DGJCG before completion of 90 days mandatory period - Thus, the officer DGICG, who had not completed 90 days, was competent as apparent from the notings of Secretary - High Court erred in law in holding otherwise - Notings, made, does not show any prejudice on the part of the DGJCG - Order passed hy 8 the High Court is set aside -As and when occasion arises, appellants would consider case of respondent no. 1 in accordance with law for promotion to the post of!G-Coast Guard (Seniority & Promotion) Rules, 1987 - Government of India (Transaction of Busines.1) Rules, 1961 - Rule Jl(i)(c) - Coast Guard (General) Rules, 1986 - Coast Guard Order 02105 and Coast Guard Order 02109. c Constitution of India - Art. 136 - Special Leave Petition - Maintainability of - Withdrawal of SLP, with liberty to file review application before the High Court, without taking permission to file SLP afresh - Thereafter, review application filed and the same was dismissed - Maintainability of fresh SLP - Held: Jn the facts . D and circumstances of the case .. when the leave to file appeal has been granted, it is appropriate to modify the order passed by this Court, w the effect that liberty is granted to assail the order passed by the High Court in a fresh SLP, in case review application is dismissed - Since the order is modified, appeals are maintainable. E Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao (1983) 3 SCC 284 - distinguished. Sandhya Educational Society and Am: v. Union of India and Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 701; Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Ors. v. Mahadeshwara S.S.K. Ltd. (2012) 12 SCC F 291 - referred to. G H Case Law Reference (1983) 3 sec 284 (2014) 1 sec 101 (2012) 12 sec 291 distinguished referred to referred to Para 19 Para 28 Para 34 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13776- 13777 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2014 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in WP No. I 0726 of2009 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. K. P. S. RAGHUVANSHI & ORS. 265 WITH A I. A. No. l of20 I 5 (For Modification) In Special Leave Petition (C) No. 30380 of 2014 and C. A. No. 13778of2015. B P. S. Patwalia, ASG., Amol Chitle, Shanker Divate, Rajat Singh, M. K. Maroria, Advs. for the Appellants. Badri
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.